Bullock v. Wallingford
| Decision Date | 12 August 1875 |
| Citation | 55 N.H. 619 |
| Parties | Bullock v. Wallingford. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
Evidence---Certificate of public officer.
A certificate from the United States commissioner of patents that diligent search has been made, and that it does not appear that a certain patent has been issued, is not competent evidence of that fact
ASSUMPSIT to recover the contents of a promissory note, made by the defendant, payable to John C. Thompson, or order, on the first day of December, 1873, and by said Thompson indorsed to the plaintiff. Tried before STANLEY, J., and a jury. The defence set up was, that the note was without consideration and obtained by Thompson by fraud; that it was not purchased by the plaintiff in good faith, nor indorsed until after it became due. The defendant offered evidence tending to show that the consideration of the note was the sale by Thompson to him of the right to sell in various towns in this state an improvement in mowing-machine grinders, alleged to have been patented by one L. P. Thompson; and that said John C Thompson falsely and fraudulently represented to him that a patent had been obtained upon this invention, and that he had seen the letters patent. As evidence tending to show that the note was without consideration, and that Thompson's representations were false and fraudulent, the defendant offered a certificate purporting to be issued from the patent office of the United States, of which the following is a copy: THE U.S. PATENT OFFICE.
To all persons to whom these presents shall come:
This is to certify that a diligent search has been made, and it does not appear that a patent has been issued to L. P. Thompson for improvement in mowing-machine grinders, from January 1st to present date.
| In testimony whereof, I, J. M. Thacher, acting commissioner of |
| patents, have caused the seal of the patent office to be hereunto |
| [L. S.] | affixed, this third day of December, in the year of our Lord |
| one thousand eight hundred and seventy-three, and of the independence |
| of the United States the ninety-eighth |
J. M THACHER, acting commissioner.
The plaintiff objected to the admission of this evidence; but the objection was overruled, and the paper admitted in evidence to which the plaintiff excepted. The jury having returned a verdict for the defendant, the plaintiff moved that the same be set aside and for a new trial; and it was ordered, that the questions of law arising on the foregoing case be transferred to ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sykes v. Beck
...been made. The rule quoted from Jones' Law of Evidence appeals to us as sound, and it has the support of judicial opinion. In Bullock v. Wallingford, 55 N.H. 619, court said: "When a party desires to prove the negative fact that there is no record, he must do so in the usual way--by the dep......
-
Burton v. Perry
...the time of the records of said court. Our Supreme Court, at an early day, quoted with approval on this issue from the case of Bullock v. Wallingford, 55 N. H. 619, as follows: "When a party desires to prove the negative fact that there is no record, he must do so in the usual way, —by the ......
-
Mounger v. Daugherty
...be found impracticable by reason of interfering with his public duties, the remedy must be found in further legislation.' Bullock v. Wallingford, 55 N. H. 619. The principle applicable to the point before us is that the custodian of the records is the proper officer to prove that the record......
-
In re Colton's Estate
...of the records. The decision appears to have been planted upon the following authorities: 2 Jones on Evidence, § 556; Bullock v. Wallingford, 55 N. H. 619;Stoner v. Ellis, 6 Ind. 152; Smith v. Richards, 29 Conn. 232; and Burton v. Driggs, 20 Wall. 125, 22 L. Ed. 299. These cases merely hold......